A Chan master of the Linji school in the Yuan Dynasty, Yuanmiao was a native of Wujiang (in present-day Jiangsu). His family name was Xu. At the age of 15, he entered his monastic life at Miyin Temple in Xiuzhou (in present-day Zhejiang), and he was ordained two years later, starting his study of the Tiantai doctrine. At age 20, he went to Jingci Temple in Hangzhou to study the meditation of contemplating key phrases (kanhua Chan) with Duanqiao Miaolun (1201–1261) and Xueyan Zuqin (1215–1287), the disciples of Wuzhun Shifan (1177–1240), who was the fourth-generation disciple of Huqiu Shaolong in the Linji school. In 1266, Yuanmiao went into retreat at Longxu Temple in Lin’an (in present-day Zhejiang), where he achieved a great awakening after hearing the sound of a falling pillow. His retreat there lasted for about eight years, and he continued it at Shuangji Peak in Wukang (in present Zhejiang). In 1279, Yuanmiao built a hermitage at Shiziyan on the western peak of Mount Tianmu to live and practice in, although he sometimes gave sermons and taught students at Shizi Temple. Later, he also taught at Dajue Chan Temple on Lianhua Peak. He died at the age of 58.
Yuanmiao had several hundred disciples and ordained more than 10,000 people. Among his disciples, the most influential was Zhongfeng Mingben. Yuanmiao’s lineage continued into the Ming and Qing dynasties. His teachings were preserved in the Gaofeng Yuanmiao Chanshi Chanyao and the Gaofeng Dashi Yulu. His most important contributions include his development of the kanhua meditation, which shifted emphasis from contemplating key phrases to meditating on questions or doubts such as, “To where does the oneness return if myriad things return to oneness?” He was also well known for his characterization of “three essentials of the kanhua Chan”: great faith, great will, and great doubt. His posthumous title was Puming Guangji Chanshi (“Chan Master of Universal Illumination and Widespread Salvation”).
This is the English translation of the Chinese work Wumen Guan. Compiled by the Song Linji Chan master Wumen Huikai, it is a collection of 48 gong’an cases, based on his lectures and published in 1229. Like many other gong’an collections, most of the stories in this selection involve the famous Tang Chan masters. However, here each anecdote is presented with a concise four-character title and with Huikai’s prose commentary and his summary poem only, distinguishing it from the other, larger collections that present a master’s secondary commentary on the primary commentary made by another master. Recent studies of Chan texts have captured the evolving process of Chan story making, and the Wumen Guan is no exception. Scholars have demonstrated traces of editorial change from the sources it claims to have. They have also pointed out the relationship between the compiler’s hermeneutical choice of gong’an cases, such as the preference for the play of negativity, and his purpose to help establish a distinctive sectarian identity, in the examination of this gong’an collection. The Wumen Guan was brought to Japan by Huikai’s disciple Shinichi Kakushin and became one of the most widely read texts in the Japanese Rinzai sect. However, it is still puzzling why it was not read in China to the extent that it was in Japan. A possible answer scholars have given is that texts other than the Wumen Guan existed extensively during that time and were already used by many Chinese practitioners.
Literally denoting “vine,” this Chinese word is used in Chan texts to symbolize unskillful, unnecessary, or clinging uses of words or concepts in conveying Buddhist dharma. It also generally refers to any kind of reliance on words or concepts in expressing and exploring dharma, which often diverts people from the right path of Buddhism. The Song Linji Chan master Dahui Zonggao, and some others as well, criticized those of the second generation of the Yunmen school for geteng Chan, a style of Chan practice that became obsessed with certain forms of awkward or excessive language and in fact harmed the goal of Chan Buddhism.
The Japanese translation of this Chinese term as koan is very popular in modern Western literature on Chan Buddhism. The most common English literal translation of the term is “public” (gong) “case” (an). With the root meaning of “the table” (an) “of a judge” (gong), this originally legal term in medieval China referred to a written document sitting on a judge’s table, a case before a court, or the record of a judge’s decision in a case. In Chan Buddhism, the term was used to denote those brief sayings, dialogues, or anecdotes that had been excerpted from the biographies and recorded sayings of Chan patriarchs and held up for interpreting and commenting. These extracted passages were seen as profound expressions or invaluable demonstrations of the awakened mind of the patriarchs, who lived in the 8th to mid-10th centuries. They were typically quoted by Song Chan masters in their sermons or in their exchanges with students, to test student insight, or to offer their own comments. Similar terms to the word gong’an in Song Chan texts include jugu and niangu, both referring to “commenting on an old case.”
It is not exactly clear how or when the practice of using gong’an started. Various gong’an cases can be found in the materials contained in the two earlier genres of Song Chan literature: the transmission of the lamp literature (or the lamp histories, such as Jingde Chuandeng Lu), and yulu literature (the recorded sayings of individual Chan masters, such as Yunmen Guanglu). The earliest Chan masters whose commentaries on old stories are included in the yulu attributed to them appear to be Yunmen Wenyan and Fenyang Shanzhao. Contemporary scholars believe that from the Five Dynasties, or at least from the beginning of the Song, Chan masters increasingly quoted gong’an in their sermons, composed anthologies of gong’an commentary, and used gong’an to challenge students to see their own Buddha-nature. Chan texts offer numerous instances of a student experiencing enlightenment when a master challenged his understanding of a particular gong’an. The use of gong’an was not limited to any specific school of classical Chan, as some modern studies of Chan have suggested. All schools of Chan used gong’an.
As the practice of commenting on the gong’an stories of patriarchs evolved, a whole independent genre of Chan literature emerged, distinguished from other genres of Chan literature. Many Song Chan masters involved themselves in the recording, compiling, and even publishing of the collections of commentaries on the gong’an. Recent study of the gong’an literature has revealed several subcategories of the gong’an genre. The first is prose commentaries versus poetic commentaries. The former gong’an collections were called niangu (picking up old cases) when a prose commentary was attached, and the latter songgu (eulogizing old cases) when the commentary was made in verse form. The second subcategory is primary collections versus secondary collections. “Primary collections” refer to those old cases that were selected and commented on by one single Chan master. The most famous example is the Wumen Guan (Gateless Barrier). “Secondary collections” are, in fact, those primary collections that were taken up and further commented on by another Chan master. A noteworthy example is the Biyan Lu (Blue Cliff Record) by Yuanwu Keqin, which is Keqin’s systematic commentary on Xuedou Chongxian’s Verses on One Hundred Old Cases (Songgu Baize). The third subcategory is independent collections versus collections attached to the recorded sayings of individual masters. Some gong’an collections were never circulated or published as independent texts furnished with prefaces, but existed only as sections within the recorded sayings (yulu) of individual masters, often grouped under the subtitles “picking up old cases (niangu)” and “eulogizing old cases (songgu).”
This term is used in opposition to “sudden enlightenment” or “sudden cultivation” (dunxiu). The Platform Sūtra imputed both notions of sudden enlightenment and sudden cultivation to Huineng. One of the purposes of such rhetoric that privileges suddenness over gradualness, used by the Platform Sūtra and its producers and advocates, was to overturn the fixation on the conventional methods, or procedures, in Chan practices and the belief that these practices would gradually lead Buddhists to their goal. The teaching of suddenness assumes that this kind of fixation and belief is based on a false dichotomy of cultivation and realization. This non-dualistic view of cultivation and realization prevailed in classical Chan, as the later Chan masters often made such negative statements as that there is neither cultivation nor realization.
All these deconstructive discourses on cultivation/realization make sense when they are applied to those Chan Buddhists who committed themselves to the practices. These discourses could also cause various misunderstandings and create new dichotomies when read out of context. Probably addressing the same concern, the Platform Sūtra had to acknowledge that there is no sudden or gradual in Buddha-dharma itself. While making those deconstructive discourses, the Platform Sūtra and later Chan texts never stopped advising students to continue their studies. To address the contradiction and avoid misunderstandings, even Shenhui, the greatest champion for the teaching of suddenness, allowed a kind of gradual cultivation after initial awakening. Zongmi more clearly proposed his synthesis that sudden enlightenment needs to be followed by gradual cultivation.
The teaching that enlightenment could be achieved gradually through a path of different stages and by increasing purity and wisdom over different but continuous periods of time is traditionally attributed to Shenxiu and his Northern school in Chan history. Allegedly, Huineng and his Southern school opposed this teaching of gradual enlightenment by proposing the teaching of sudden enlightenment, based on a radical non-duality between cultivation and realization, means and goal, prior time and subsequent time, and so forth. The later Chan schools almost all came to embrace the idea of sudden enlightenment as they claimed to be followers of Huineng and the Southern school. Contemporary historians have challenged the historical accuracy of the traditional conclusion of Shenxiu’s teaching on gradual enlightenment. Although some of Shenxiu’s and his followers’ views could be interpreted as favoring a kind of gradualism, Shenxiu himself never denied the instantaneity of enlightenment, nor did he preach that enlightenment is gradual.
Temple of “luminous filiality.” Located in the current city of Guangzhou, it was formerly a residence used by the exiled Wu aristocrat Yu Fan, during the Three Kingdoms (220–265). After Yu’s death, his family donated it to the construction of a temple called Zhizhi Si. In 397, the Gandhāra monk Dharmayaśas (Ch. Tanmoyeshe) arrived at Guangzhou, built a Buddha hall there, and named it Wangyuan Temple. In 527, Bodhidharma arrived at Guangzhou and was invited to this temple. During the Zhen’guan era (627–649) of the Tang dynasty, it was renovated and renamed as Faxing Temple. Out of all its related legends, the most popular was its connection with the sixth patriarch, Huineng. It was said that in 676, Huineng arrived here after secretly receiving the transmission of dharma from Hongreng. Huineng was ordained by the masters Yinzong (627–712) in the presence of several preceptors. Then under the bodhi tree, Huineng gave his first sermon, and his cut hair from the ordination was buried under a pagoda. The Sixth Patriarch Hall and Banner Hall were later built to memorialize Huineng. The place was thus seen as one of the Chan temples of patriarchs (Chanzong zuting). Several eminent monks from India also visited and practiced there. During the Song dynasty, the temple was renamed Qianming Chan Monastery, Congning Wanshou Temple, and Bao’en Guangxiao Chan Temple. In 1151, it was named Guangxiao Temple once again. During the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, the temple was enlarged and became very prosperous.
The English translation of this Chinese title is Treatise on the Contemplation of the Mind. Initially having different versions and titles, and once attributed to Bodhidharma, this text has finally been identified by modern Japanese scholars as an authentic work of Shenxiu, based on their studies of newly discovered manuscripts from the Dunhuang documents and information from a reliable historical source. Most scholars now believe that it was compiled during Shenxiu’s residence at Yuquan Temple in the last quarter of the 7th century.
In this treatise, Shenxiu elaborated on his teaching that “contemplating the mind (guanxin)” is the single most important dharma encompassing all Buddhist practices. This “contemplating the mind” is to realize the pure mind, the mind of true suchness (zhenru), by penetrating the nonsubstantiality of the defiled mind through meditation. It is also called “cultivating the mind (xiuxin).” Obviously Shenxiu’s teaching evolved from his teacher Hongren’s notion of “maintaining [the awareness of] the mind (shouxin).” But Shenxiu was even less explicit than his teacher about the actual techniques of “contemplating the mind” and more interested in a unique interpretation of the original Buddhist intent expressed to his students so as to facilitate their practices. Shenxiu also emphasized that the practice of contemplating the mind must be carried out constantly during one’s activities and acknowledged that the achievement of enlightenment occurs instantaneously—a position that was developed much further by his later opponents. The Guanxin Lun is a precious document for restoring and critically examining Shenxiu’s religious philosophy.
“Guishan’s Admonitions,” a written text attributed to Guishan Lingyou. Recovered from the Dunhuang documents, the earliest extant edition of this text is dated 936, from the late Tang dynasty. Although there is no conclusive historical evidence that Lingyou wrote this text, scholars have found little to doubt about its authenticity. In this text, Lingyou addressed his concern with the existing problems of corruption and lack of discipline among Chan monasteries. While maintaining the highest Chan teaching of sudden enlightenment and “going beyond expedient teachings,” Lingyou elaborated on the necessity of studying scriptures, observing monastic precepts, following mentors, and other traditional cultivation and practices for those who had not been able to attain sudden enlightenment. Moreover, he made clear that cultivation and non-cultivation, which usually means gradual practice and sudden realization, should not be seen as separate or opposite. Cultivation is an ongoing process and, if a student does not give up, it will help him attain Buddhahood. The text is an important document for studying the ethical stance of the Hongzhou school and Guiyang school in particular and of Tang Chan in general. It reveals a truth about Chan: that although for Chan the detachment from conventional moral norms seems indispensable for the enlightened mind, it does not necessarily entail the rejection or abandonment of moral norms and their everyday function. Rather, the enlightened or transcendent perspective supplements the latter and even makes their function more effective. The transcendent perspective presupposes the working of these moral norms. The expression of the former is dependent on the latter.
A Chan master of the Tang dynasty and cofounder of the Guiyang School, Lingyou was born in Changxi of Fuzhou, in present-day Fujian Province. His family name was Zhao. At the age of 15, he entered his monastic life and studied with Fachang, a master of precepts. At 23, he went to Jiangxi to study with Baizhang Huaihai. With Baizhang, he reached enlightenment and became Baizhang’s dharma heir. In about 820, Lingyou arrived at Mount Gui in Tanzhou of Hunan. He later built Tongqing Temple there. His practice was supported by a number of local officials, including Pei Xiu. With these supports, he survived the Huichang persecution, with his students numbering more than 1,500. He died at the age of 83. His posthumous title was Dayuan Chanshi (“Chan Master of Great Circle”).
Lingyou had more than 40 direct dharma heirs, including Yanshan Huiji, the cofounder of the Guiyang School. Lingyou inherited the main teachings of the Hongzhou School, but he was known for his mild and kindly personality. His relationship with his heir Huiji resembled that of father and son, and the emphasis on the harmony of the minds without relying on words (moqi) was characterized as his family style (jiafeng). Lingyou’s teaching on the non-duality of the mind (xin) and form (se) also underlied Huiji’s pedagogical use of the so-called circle-figures (yuanxiang), which became a unique characteristic of the Guiyan school. An extant text called Guishan Jingce (Admonitions of Guishan)—an important document for the study of the ethics of the Hongzhou school—was attributed to Lingyou and is considered relatively reliable. Passages from his sermons and many dialogues are preserved in the Tanzhou Guishan Lingyou Chanshi Yulu (Recorded Sayings of the Chan Master Guishan Lingyou of Tanzhou) as part of the Wujia Yulu (Recorded Sayings of the Five Houses), an edition from the Ming dynasty. More reliable information of this kind can be found in the earlier texts of the transmission of the lamp literature, such as the Zutang Ji and the Jingde Chuandeng Lu.
This school is one of the “five houses” of the Southern school of Chan. It is named after its cofounders, Guishan Lingyou and his dharma heir Yangshan Huiji. Lingyou taught disciples at Mount Gui in Hunan and had more than 40 direct dharma heirs, including Yangshan Huiji and Xiangyan Zhixian. Xiangyan Zhixian’s enlightenment story is ranked among the most famous Chan stories by later generations for its iconoclastic element. Yangshan mainly taught at Mount Yang in Jiangxi and had 10 dharma heirs. Both Lingyou and Huiji had influence on and acquired support from many local high officials. Although this school was the earliest to emerge among the five houses and spread to both southern and northern areas of China, its lineage was also the first to die out in the early Song. The teachings of this school kept its legacy from the Hongzhou school. Lingyou and Huiji are not famous for their shouting or beating; they were more mild and calm teachers, but no less prominent than others in using performative actions and gestures of ordinary life to inspire students, with the emphasis on the mutual accord of the minds and experiences beyond words (moqi). Huiji’s use of circle-figure to indirectly convey the insights of Chan was also a characteristic of the Guiyang school. In addition, deconstructing the traditional distinction between sudden enlightenment and gradual cultivation in terms of non-duality is the school’s contribution to the development of Chan teachings.
Records of Sayings of Ancient Worthies, a collection of the recorded sayings (yulu) of individual Chan masters, was compiled by Ze Zangzhu of the Southern Song dynasty, also known as Shouze Sengting (d.u.), a Linji Chan master. The original text was called Fuzhou Gushansi Guzunsu Yuyao (Essential Sayings of Ancient Worthies from Mount Gu Temple in Fuzhou) and was compiled by Shouze during the Shaoxing era (1131–1138). This text has four fascicles and holds the recorded sayings of 20 Chan masters. In 1267, during the Xianchun era of the Southern Song dynasty, a reprint was issued under the sponsorship of the lay Chan Buddhist Juexin, and the number of collected sayings of the Chan masters was increased to 28. In 1414, when it was included in the Ming Buddhist canon, the number of the collected records of sayings was increased to 37, and the book to 48 fascicles. The current version included in the Xuzang Jing (Reprint of Dai Nihon zokuzōkyō) is a Ming edition of 1617. It involves five Chan masters from the lineage of Qingyuan Xingsi and 32 masters from the lineage of Nanyue Huairang. Most of the collected records are those of the Linji school. The number of the collected Chan masters is much smaller than those in the lamp histories, but it is an influential collection of the texts of the yulu genre, many of which were not included in the lamp history texts.